Monday, December 22, 2025

Whether the Commission under the WBCE Act, 2017 had jurisdiction to: examine qualifications of doctors and paramedical staff; adjudicate deficiency in patient care service; and award compensation.

West Bengal Clinical Establishments Act, 2017 — Ss. 33, 36, 38 — Jurisdiction of Commission

The West Bengal Clinical Establishment Regulatory Commission has jurisdiction to examine complaints relating to deficiency in patient care services, including examination of qualifications of doctors and paramedical staff employed by a clinical establishment, and to award compensation.
(Paras 12.1, 12.2, 14)


Medical negligence — Deficiency in patient care — Distinction

Deficiency in patient care service and medical negligence are distinct concepts. While complaints of medical negligence against professionals are to be dealt with by the State Medical Council, the Commission is empowered to adjudicate deficiencies in patient care services, even if such examination incidentally involves scrutiny of medical credentials.
(Paras 12.6, 14)


Service provider — Qualification — Mandatory requirement

Doctors and paramedical professionals employed by a clinical establishment must possess the minimum recognized qualifications relevant to the services rendered. Employment of unqualified or unrecognized personnel constitutes deficiency in patient care service.
(Paras 12.2, 12.3)


Interpretation of ECG / Echocardiogram — Minimum qualification

As per the Medical Council of India, the minimum qualification for clinical interpretation of echocardiogram data is MD (Medicine). A diploma in clinical cardiology not recognized by the Medical Council does not meet this minimum standard.
(Paras 12.2, 13)


Commission — Power to award compensation — Death of patient

Under Section 33 of the WBCE Act, 2017, the Commission is empowered to award compensation in cases of injury or death of a service recipient caused by deficiency in service. In case of death, compensation shall not be less than ten lakh rupees.
(Paras 12.4, 14–15)


High Court — Interference under Articles 226 / 227 — Impropriety

The High Court erred in holding that the Commission lacked jurisdiction and in setting aside its findings. Granting excessive primacy to the State Medical Council would render the Commission’s statutory role ineffective and defeat legislative intent.
(Paras 14–15)


Clinical establishment — Duty of transparency

Transparency in patient care requires truthful disclosure of the patient’s condition. Issuance of a discharge summary misrepresenting the patient’s condition amounts to deficiency in service.
(Para 12.5)


Held

The Commission acted within jurisdiction in examining qualifications, holding deficiency in patient care service, and awarding compensation. Judgment of the Division Bench set aside; orders of the Commission and Single Judge restored.
(Paras 14–15)


B. ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW (with Paragraph Numbers)

I. FACTUAL MATRIX (Paras 2–4)

  1. The appellant’s mother was admitted to the respondent-hospital and, after five days of treatment, was referred to another hospital on 07-05-2017 (para 3).

  2. At the time of transfer, the discharge summary described her condition as “stable”. She was shifted in the early hours of 08-05-2017 and passed away approximately sixteen hours later (paras 3–4).

  3. A complaint dated 12-05-2017 was filed alleging negligence in diagnosis, delay in shifting, improper medication, and misguiding the patient’s family (para 3).


II. FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION (Para 4)

  1. The Commission found serious lapses in patient care, including:

    • Incorrect description of patient’s condition in discharge summary;

    • Performance of critical diagnostic procedures by unqualified personnel.

  2. It held that:

    • Dr. Ashok Giri’s postgraduate diploma in clinical cardiology was not recognized;

    • The ECG technician lacked recognized qualification;

    • Such acts constituted deficiency in patient care service and unethical trade practice.

  3. Compensation of ₹20 lakhs was awarded under Section 33 of the Act (para 4).


III. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HIGH COURT (Paras 5–7)

  1. The Single Judge upheld the Commission’s order, holding that examination of qualifications fell within its jurisdiction (para 5).

  2. The Division Bench reversed the decision, holding that:

    • Issues of qualification and negligence fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the State Medical Council; and

    • Patient care and medical negligence were inseparable (para 7).


IV. ISSUE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT (Para 9)

Whether the Commission under the WBCE Act, 2017 had jurisdiction to:

  • examine qualifications of doctors and paramedical staff;

  • adjudicate deficiency in patient care service; and

  • award compensation.


V. ANALYSIS OF LAW BY THE SUPREME COURT

A. Statutory Scheme and Legislative Intent (Paras 10–12.1)

The Act is enacted in public interest to ensure regulation, transparency, and minimum standards of patient care. The Commission’s role includes supervision, accountability, and ensuring qualified personnel are employed.


B. Power to Examine Qualifications (Paras 12.2–12.3)

  1. “Service provider” includes doctors and paramedical staff.

  2. Both categories must be appropriately trained and qualified.

  3. Examination of educational qualifications is intrinsic to assessing patient care services.


C. Distinction Between Negligence and Deficiency (Para 12.6)

The Commission consciously refrained from adjudicating medical negligence. It limited itself to examining deficiency in patient care service, which is expressly within its statutory powers.


D. Compensation for Death (Paras 12.4, 14)

Section 33 empowers the Commission to award compensation for death caused by deficiency in service. This power is independent of disciplinary proceedings before the Medical Council.


E. Error of the High Court (Paras 14–15)

The Division Bench’s approach would effectively nullify the Commission’s statutory role. Such interpretation defeats the object of the Act.


VI. CONCLUSION / RATIO DECIDENDI (Paras 14–15)

  1. The Commission has jurisdiction to:

    • examine qualifications of service providers;

    • determine deficiency in patient care service; and

    • award compensation.

  2. Medical negligence complaints remain within the exclusive domain of the State Medical Council.

  3. Judgment of the Division Bench set aside; Commission’s award restored with interest.

No comments:

Post a Comment